alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022095EN.01002702.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Worldwide Spirits Supply v EUIPO — Melfinco (CLEOPATRA QUEEN)

(Case T-870/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CLEOPATRA QUEEN - Earlier national word mark CLEOPATRA MELFINCO - Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Declaration of invalidity)

(2022/C 95/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Demetriou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Melfinco S.A. (Schaan, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gioti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 (Case R 1820/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Melfinco and Worldwide Spirits Supply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Melfinco S.A. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Melfinco S.A. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---
##### 



Exhibit 14.9 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the
Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of
CVRD and Vale Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas of our report dated January 15, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of Companhia Hispano-Brasileira de Pelotização  HISPANOBRAS which
appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the
year ended December 31, 2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
# C_2020433EN.01004601.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK)

(Case T-607/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark FAKE DUCK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Principles of equal treatment and legality)

(2020/C 433/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 830/2019-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign FAKE DUCK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc. for the
three-month period ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,128,334
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      983,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,111,791
<PP&E>                                           4,231,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                      81,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,261,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              219,785
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        15,938,398
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,896,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,261,566
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   226,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (226,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (226,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (226,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 42 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to parental rights. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2012 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. 

ENZI, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. LEE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. 

RISCH) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to parental rights. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 42 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The liberty of parents to direct the up3 bringing, education, and care of their children is a funda4 mental right. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. Neither the United States nor any State 

6 shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its 

7 governmental interest, as applied to the person, is of the 

8 highest order and not otherwise served. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall not be construed to 

10 apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 4. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any 

12 source of international law be employed to supersede, mod13 ify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this 

14 article.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

November 19, 2001

Richard G. Richmond
13705 Shoreline Court East
Earth City, MO 63045

Dear Rick:

This letter amends the Consulting Agreement dated January 8, 2001 by and between
Richard G. Richmond ("Consultant") and Young Innovations, Inc. (the "Consulting
Agreement"). Consultant and Young Innovations, Inc. (the "Company") hereby agree
that Section 1(f)(i) of the Consulting Agreement shall be amended by replacing
December 31, 2001 with June 30, 2002. In addition, Consultant and the Company
may extend the Consulting Term (as defined in the Consulting Agreement) for an
additional six months from June 30, 2002 to December 31, 2002 by mutual written
agreement at least 30 days prior to June 30, 2002. Except as specifically
provided herein, all other terms, conditions and provisions set forth in the
Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. If the foregoing, is
acceptable please sign and date this letter as set forth below.

Sincerely,


Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.
Executive Vice President


Accepted and Agreed:


/s/ Richard G. Richmond
-----------------------
Richard G. Richmond
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul LAZCANO-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10241.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

*447Craig Michael Timm, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Raul Lazcano-Salazar appeals from the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lazcano-Salazar contends that the district court abused its discretion by considering both a 1987 felony machine gun possession conviction and a 1997 heroin conspiracy conviction in reaching the decision to vary only six months downward from the applicable Guidelines range. This contention is without merit. Section 3553(a) explicitly calls upon the sentencing judge to consider the defendant’s “history and characteristics” in fashioning a sentence. The district court’s determination that the age of Lazcano-Salazar’s prior felonies, when measured against their seriousness, warranted a variance of six months was consistent with this court’s decision in *United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez,*567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).

Lazcano-Salazar also contends that the United States left him with a “skewed impression of the seriousness” of an illegal reentry charge when it detained him for only three weeks in 2002 after a reentry that followed his release from prison on the heroin conviction, rendering a 40-month sentence in connection with his present reentry unreasonable. The below-Guidelines sentence imposed was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the totality of the circumstances. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 50 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 50

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family 
   Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the 
    Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and 
expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 
    U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
                           Families program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2012

 Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
 Thune, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
     Burr, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family 
   Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the 
    Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and 
expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 
    U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
                           Families program.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration 
for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human 
Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 
1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (issued July 12, 2012, 
as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Information Memorandum 
Transmittal No. TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03, and printed in the Congressional 
Record on September 10, 2012, on pages S6047-S6050, along with a letter 
of opinion from the Government Accountability Office dated September 4, 
2012, that the Information Memorandum is a rule under the Congressional 
Review Act), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Western Standard Energy Corp. - Exhibit 10.4







 

 






          TO HAVE
AND TO HOLD said assigned interest unto Assignee, its successors and assigns,
subject to all of the express and implied covenants and obligations of the
leases and this Assignment. 

          IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed and delivered this
Assignment as at the date first above written. 

	Assignor: 	Western Standard Energy Corp. 
	  	  
	  	  
	  	       /s/
      Peter Jenks 
	  	By: Peter Jenks, President 


Province of Saskatchewan 

County of ___________

On this 17th day of December 2009, before me, a
Notary Public, personally appeared Peter Jenks, know to me to be the President
of Western Standard Energy Corp., that is described in and that executed the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that the company executed the same.


GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this December 17, 2009.


	My Commission Expires: 	 /s/ Linda A. Perry 
	November 30, 2011 	Seal 
	  	Linda A. Perry, Notary Public 
	  	Saskatchewan 


Page 2 of 4
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Optical Cable Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-09433 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-103108 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-115575 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-128163 on Form S-8 of
Optical Cable Corporation of our report dated January 29, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Optical Cable Corporation and Subsidiaries as of October 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of
income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2008, which report is incorporated by reference in the October 31, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Optical Cable
Corporation. Our report refers to the Companys adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,on November 1, 2007.



|                 
|-----------------
|                 
|/s/ KPMG LLP     
|                 
|Roanoke, Virginia
|January 29, 2009
(56 Misc. Rep. 138.)

#### KEHOE v. INTERNATIONAL RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Trial Term, Niagara County.

October 12, 1907.)

Evidence—Physician’s Opinion—Cause of Personal Injury.

In estimating damages for personal injury, apprehended future consequences which are merely possible and speculative may not be considered, but physician may testify that in his judgment plaintiff’s alleged condition as to nervousness, headaches, and pain after the accident and before and at the trial might or could have resulted from the accident; plaintiff having previously testified that such conditions so resulted.

Action by James B. ICehoe against the International Railway Company. Motion by defendant for new trial on judge’s minutes after $1,500 verdict for plaintiff. Denied.

Morris Cohn, for the motion.

Alfred W. Gray, opposed.

POUND, J.

Plaintiff, while riding as a passenger, on defendant’s trolley car between Buffalo and Lockport, was struck and wounded in the head by a trolley wheel which flew off the front car trolley, and ■came through a transom window or ventilator into the smoking compartment, where plaintiff was sitting, in the forward part of a second car attached to and following the first car.

Defendant’s counsel moves for a new trial on the ground that the court was in error in admitting, over his objection, the. evidence of *197Dr. Kittinger, to the effect that, in his judgment as a physician, plaintiff’s alleged condition as to nervousness, headaches, and pain after the accident and before and at the trial might or could have resulted from the accident; plaintiff having previously testified that such conditions were the result of the accident. He cites Huba v. Schenectady R. R. Co., 85 App. Div. 203, 83 N. Y. Supp. 157, decided in the Third Department in June, 1903, as sustaining his proposition, and the evidence seems to fall under the condemnation of the authority relied on. With diffidence, I venture the opinion that, on this point, the Huba Case is in direct conflict with the rule laid down in Turner v. Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301,16 N. E. 344, 4 Am. St. Rep. 453, has not been followed, and is not controlling here. It is a well-established rule that apprehended future consequences which are merely possible and speculative are not- proper to be considered in estimating damages. Strohm v. Railroad Co., 96 N. Y. 305. But, as was said by Gray, J., in the Turner Case, supra :

> “It is perfectly competent to furnish the jury with evidence of the present physical condition and bodily sufferings (of the plaintiff) and with the opinions of competent physicians as to whether such could have resulted from the accident.”

The Turner Case was not considered in the opinion in the Huba Case. It is, however, cited with aooroval and followed on this point in the more recent case of Graham v. Bauland Co., 97 App. Div. 145, 89 N. Y. S. 595, decided in the Second Department in July, 1904. See, also, Hamel v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 59 App. Div. 135, 69 N. Y. Supp. 166; Quinn v. O’Keefe, 9 App. Div. 68, 74, 41 N. Y. Supp. 116; Bowen v. Railroad Co., 89 Hun, 594, 35 N. Y. Supp. 540.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, John R. Hickey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Renaissance Learning, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date:     November 5, 2004
       ----------------------

                                          /s/ John R. Hickey
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         John R. Hickey
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer